Rigging The Polls

[Geoist]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

 

[calamity]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

Yes, exactly. I would think that by showing us polls have Hillary winning by a near landslide, it would discourage people from going out of their way, like waiting in long lines, to vote for her.

I'd rather see the polls showing Donald ahead by a small margin than showing Hillary up by 8-10 points.

 

[11Bravo]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

Your point makes sense to me.

 

[VanceMack]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

The intent is to convince the other side that there is no reason to vote. Its not unlike the complaints made in Florida when the state is 'called' while there is still time to vote.

It would be especially effective in an election where there are extraordinarily unpopular candidates like what we have now. People are already reluctant to vote for either of those turds. But if you can convince the one side that there really is no reason to sully yourself by voting for Trump for example since he cant win, then why would you bother.

ABC has been caught pretty much red-handed oversampling minority groups and democrats. Their own polling demographics prove they start with a 9% bias. CNN has also been caught doing the same thing and one of the polling companies consistently showing Clinton with an 11% lead is headed by a man that is literally being paid by the DNC. And now we have Podesta's emails showing their INTENT to rig polls to release the data to their proven confederates in the media. There is zero question that the polling data is flawed intentionally.

 

[Fenton]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

You should ask the people that are reponsible. They apparently think oversampling to create innacurate margins showing Clinton or any Democrat Presidential Candidate up is worth doing.

 

[Fenton]

Carter was up 8 or 9 five days out from the election and Reagan cleaned his clock.

Apparently this has been going on for some time.

 

[Praxas]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

Rush is actually full of **** as well as all the other nay sayers because rigging the polls would cause Dems to think their candidate won and there would be less of a turnout.

 

[Praxas]

You should ask the people that are reponsible. They apparently think oversampling to create innacurate margins showing Clinton or any Democrat Presidential Candidate up is worth doing.

Or the polls are saying EXACTLY what they say. That Trump is losing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

It may be to discourage those that would only vote for Trump to prevent Hillary from winning - take the chance of a Trump victory away and (at least some of) those folks will just stay home.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It may be to discourage those that would only vote for Trump to prevent Hillary from winning - take the chance of a Trump victory away and (at least some of) those folks will just stay home.

Is all the talk of vote rigging also going to discourage trump voters from voting?

 

[sanman]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

No, people often "go with the flow" and latch on to the winning candidate - nobody wants to back a loser.

How come nobody's turning out for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein?

 

[Anagram]

Carter was up 8 or 9 five days out from the election and Reagan cleaned his clock.

Apparently this has been going on for some time.

First of all, that's not actually true. https://newrepublic.com/article/107171/exploding-the-reagan-1980-comeback-myth Carter was up in a single poll (Gallup) in mid-October but Reagan had the lead even in Gallup's final poll. Meanwhile the combined polling gave Reagan a consistent lead.

Secondly, how do you square that this has been happening for so long with Democrats actually being slightly underestimated in 2012 and the polls being almost exactly right in 2008, 2004, and 2000?

 

[Anagram]

ABC has been caught pretty much red-handed oversampling minority groups and democrats. Their own polling demographics prove they start with a 9% bias. CNN has also been caught doing the same thing and one of the polling companies consistently showing Clinton with an 11% lead is headed by a man that is literally being paid by the DNC. And now we have Podesta's emails showing their INTENT to rig polls to release the data to their proven confederates in the media. There is zero question that the polling data is flawed intentionally.

Source for the ABC/CNN rigging?

If the Podesta email you're referencing is the one about oversampling, then you have a mistaken interpretation of it.

 

[Chomsky]

So while listening to Rush today, he made his usual argument that the liberals are skewing the polls in their favor by polling more Democrats (not sure what his evidence was, but that is for another discussion). This got me thinking: What would be the motivation for a polling group to skew polls to favor their candidate? You would think they'd want to do the opposite: Instill fear on their voting base by getting them to think the opposition has a serious chance of winning. By making their candidate look like she's skating into the White House, it may discourage the votes they want on election day.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, I fund it difficult address your question without firstly addressing the specific incident mentioned.

Rush is absolutely right! Ds *are* over-represented in relation to Rs in quality polling, and for good reason - there are more Ds in the electorate! This is exactly how the polling should be done. If Mr. Limbaugh is purporting this offset is some form of sinister plan, then he is either extremely nave, or (more likely IMO) he is playing his audience for all their worth. I hope you don't feel this slights your thread, because you indeed have an interesting question that's come-up from time-to-time, and can be a good point for general discussion. But I felt I must address the quoted Limbaugh behaviour.

To address your general question, I think we simply need to observe how experienced successful candidates (not Trump) handle themselves. I believe early in the campaign it is helpful for your supporters to feel they are part of a movement; that their support is validated by many others, and that they are onto a good thing and have viability to effect a change. Later in the campaign, if winning you then want to portray yourself as in a close race, but needing every single vote to succeed. Conversely, if losing late in the race, you need to portray the situation also as close but doable if every vote comes out.

In the latter stages, if candidates are too far ahead their supporters may feel the election is fait accompli and there's no need to come out. If a candidate's too far behind, their supporters may become disillusioned and feel the situation is too hopeless for their vote to count. Therefore I see the specific hypothetical skewing strategy changing as the campaign progresses, and is dependent upon the candidate's competitive status.

So if one wanted to slant polls for political strategic effect, IMO they'd want to skew them to fit the scenarios I described above.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is all the talk of vote rigging also going to discourage trump voters from voting?

Not likely, that is mainly to get the Trump uber-faithful madder at "the system" and thus more likely to vote. Trump's problem is that he has supplied plenty of "news material" that has nothing to do with his policy positions - Hillary was smart enough to lay low and let others do much of her talking.

 

[Fenton]

Or the polls are saying EXACTLY what they say. That Trump is losing.

Actually is up 2 in the IBD poll and up 1 in the LA times poll and your kind of making my point.

Trump Up 2 Points Nationwide, While Clinton Campaigns As If The Race Is Already Won — IBD/TIPP Poll | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

As to the election results, theres a record early voting turnout in my neck of the woods and they're NOT voting for Hillary.

Maybe over sampling as a tactic to discourage GOP voters has run its course.

Meh, its a win win as far as I see it. If Trump wins Hillary loses, if Hillary wins the Democrats have just put the most corrupt and dishonest President in the WH in our Nations history

She will kill off whats left of the Democrat brand as more ans more of her corruption sees the light of day and as things continue to get worse for your average American

 

[Fenton]

Source for the ABC/CNN rigging?

If the Podesta email you're referencing is the one about oversampling, then you have a mistaken interpretation of it.

Lol ! How so ?

 

[Anagram]

Lol ! How so ?

Oversampling is not something to skew the results, it's something to make the polls more accurate. If there's a group in your polling that is such a small percentage of the population that you aren't likely to get a worthwhile sample in a normal poll, you oversample it to get a more accurate reading, but then re-weight it to it's proper percentage in the poll. This isn't something just political pollsters do, but basically anybody doing market research.


WaPo does a pretty good job explaining it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/very-bad-analysis-of-a-2008-email-is-donald-trumps-new-excuse-for-why-hes-losing/

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Oversampling is not something to skew the results, it's something to make the polls more accurate. If there's a group in your polling that is such a small percentage of the population that you aren't likely to get a worthwhile sample in a normal poll, you oversample it to get a more accurate reading, but then re-weight it to it's proper percentage in the poll. This isn't something just political pollsters do, but basically anybody doing market research.


WaPo does a pretty good job explaining it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/very-bad-analysis-of-a-2008-email-is-donald-trumps-new-excuse-for-why-hes-losing/

I think some people are having a difficult time accepting Hillary Clinton winning this election.

In fact, we have video evidence of Julian Assange having a breakdown



Oh wait that was the riddler...eh close enough.

 

[Fenton]

Oversampling is not something to skew the results, it's something to make the polls more accurate. If there's a group in your polling that is such a small percentage of the population that you aren't likely to get a worthwhile sample in a normal poll, you oversample it to get a more accurate reading, but then re-weight it to it's proper percentage in the poll. This isn't something just political pollsters do, but basically anybody doing market research.


WaPo does a pretty good job explaining it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/very-bad-analysis-of-a-2008-email-is-donald-trumps-new-excuse-for-why-hes-losing/

Yea and of it were anyone but the Democrats doing it I might buy that explanation.

CNN had only a 26% sample of GOPers when they were trying to score who won in the 2cnd debate.

 

[Hypothetical]

well, we know the Dems successfully rigged the DNC nominations... why not the GE polls?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

well, we know the Dems successfully rigged the DNC nominations... why not the GE polls?

What state primary and caucuses were rigged?

 

[Fenton]

I think some people are having a difficult time accepting Hillary Clinton winning this election.

In fact, we have video evidence of Julian Assange having a breakdown



Oh wait that was the riddler...eh close enough.

I honestly dont mind. Like I said, you guys are electing one of the most corrupt and dishonest Presidents in our Nations history. She wont be working for you, she'll be working for special interest and Wall Street.

She was pretty clear about that. Things wont improve and there will be no one to blame but Hillary and her voters.

As bad as Donald is for the GOP, Hillary's worse for the Democrat brand because its already been weakened by corruption and disastrous initiatives like ObamaCare.

Either she turns things around really fast or she continues to desttoy whats left of your precious party

 

[Chomsky]

The intent is to convince the other side that there is no reason to vote. Its not unlike the complaints made in Florida when the state is 'called' while there is still time to vote.

It would be especially effective in an election where there are extraordinarily unpopular candidates like what we have now. People are already reluctant to vote for either of those turds. But if you can convince the one side that there really is no reason to sully yourself by voting for Trump for example since he cant win, then why would you bother.

ABC has been caught pretty much red-handed oversampling minority groups and democrats. Their own polling demographics prove they start with a 9% bias. CNN has also been caught doing the same thing and one of the polling companies consistently showing Clinton with an 11% lead is headed by a man that is literally being paid by the DNC. And now we have Podesta's emails showing their INTENT to rig polls to release the data to their proven confederates in the media. There is zero question that the polling data is flawed intentionally.

Could these supposed biases reflect the demographic make-up of the electorate, where Ds exceed Rs?

"The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. "

Source: Pew Research: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

[BTW - there's a ton of great demographic data there in terms of party affiliation]

I'd also like to point-out affiliation or subsidy does not necessarily equate a purposely skewed poll. Fox News is often an extremely biased organization, but their recent scientific national (not viewer) polls seem to be done pretty well and with good methodology, and I see no reason at this point to discount them. In fact I'd opine a quality candidate's internal polling (perhaps not Trump) is likely superior to that of the public, particularly at the more granular closer-to-the-ground levels.

 

[Hypothetical]

What state primary and caucuses were rigged?

superdelegates and the DNC staff's biased "leaning" towards Hillary as seen with DWS.